Agenda Imperial County Transmission Consultation Stakeholder Meeting Tom Cuccia Lead Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Specialist October 8, 2014
Imperial County Transmission Consultation Meeting - Today’s Agenda Topic Presenter Welcome and Logistics Mercy Parker Helget Overview & Stakeholder Process Gary DeShazo General Summary of Stakeholder Comments Gary DeShazo Current Resource Deliverability Capabilities from Imperial Valley Technical Addendum to the July 2, 2014 Imperial County Neil Millar Transmission Consultation Draft Discussion Paper Clarification of Maximum Import Capability Catalin Micsa Addendum to Transmission Options and Potential Corridor Designations in Southern California in Response to Closure of Susan Lee/Brewster Birdsall San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Conclusions & Open Discussion Neil Millar/All Page 2
Overview and Stakeholder Process and General Summary of Stakeholder Comments Imperial County Transmission Consultation Stakeholder Meeting Gary DeShazo Director – Regional Coordination, Infrastructure Development October 8, 2014
There is varied interest in the Imperial County area including factors that drive the need for study • In July 2014 the CAISO initiated the Imperial Valley Consultation to inform the 2014-2015 planning process • CAISO perceived a need to involve stakeholders in a consultation on import deliverability from Imperial County • Generally, stakeholders are aware of deliverability impacts related to SONGS retirement and Once-Through-Cooling implementation; further discussion would be valuable • Resultant transmission proposals are under consideration and visibility of recent CEC/Aspen environmental assessment was considered relevant to the discussion • Possible synergies in achieving further reliability benefits in the LA Basin/San Diego area Page 4
The second discussion paper aligns with the key objectives presented in the first consultation meeting • Elevate visibility of the CAISO’s 2014-2015 transmission planning effort’s focus on Imperial County deliverability • Facilitate dialog on proposed transmission options to address Imperial County import deliverability and consideration of other options to consider • Provide visibility of existing CEC/Aspen environmental assessments and consideration of additional assessments • Consider the possibility of reallocating a portion of the Maximum Import Capability that is allocated to the transmission path from Arizona to enable increased import capability from Imperial County Page 5
Proposed stakeholder consultation schedule Date Milestone July 2 Post first discussion paper [Completed] July 14 Stakeholder meeting (in person) [Completed] July 28 Stakeholder comments to be submitted to regionaltransmission@caiso.com [Completed] September 24-25 Stakeholder Meeting #2 of the 2014-2015 Transmission Planning Process [Completed] October 1 Post Revised Discussion Paper [Completed] October 1 Post stakeholder comment matrix [Completed] October 8 Second Stakeholder Meeting October 15 Stakeholder comments to be submitted to regionaltransmission@caiso.com October 31 Post finalized discussion paper November 19-20 Stakeholder Meeting #3 of the 2014-2015 Transmission Planning Process January 2015 California ISO Posts Draft 2014-2015 Transmission Plan Page 6
General Summary of Comments Imperial County Transmission Consultation Stakeholder Meeting Gary DeShazo Director – Regional Coordination, Infrastructure Development October 8, 2014
Comments from stakeholders covered a broad range of topics • Comments were received from 23 stakeholders • All comments and corresponding CAISO responses have been captured in a stakeholder comment matrix • Stakeholders were asked to consider several questions – In addition to the transmission options under consideration, are there other options to consider? – Considering the information presented by Aspen, what additional information could be provided by Aspen? – Is the reallocation of Maximum Import Capability a viable option? – If so, what approaches should be considered by the CAISO to implement this proposal?
In addition to the transmission options under consideration, are there other options to consider? • Several new options were proposed for consideration • Proposed options utilized existing right-of-way, lowered construction costs, and/or increased overall import deliverability • A common theme among some entities was consideration of reliability benefits to be gained by completing segments of some of the larger routes that were suggested for Aspen to consider • The ability to stage the development of segments of the various alternatives may alter permitting assumptions on individual segments, while the overall alternative may be ranked as “very challenging” • Such considerations could provide an interim arrangement, providing additional time to consider other options Page 9
Considering the information presented by Aspen, what additional information could be provided by Aspen? • On balance, commenters positively embraced the inclusion of Aspen’s environmental information, however others were confused by the inclusion of this information as more current information had not been included • As a result, the CAISO worked with the CEC and Aspen to prepare an addendum to their report to include recent data • Once again, the concept of breaking down a “large scale” project into an “openly developed collection of segments drawn from the various aspects of large-scale project proposals” • Such an approach might resolve the reliability issues for the long term by informing stakeholders of “avenues to solutions that can be assembled successfully while helping address critical reliability issues segment–by–segment” Page 10
Is the reallocation of Maximum Import Capability a viable option? • On balance, commenters supported consideration of developing a reallocation methodology • Considered an appropriate alternative to building new, high cost transmission facilities • Comments also posited that there is no state policy to drive deliverability and as such, new transmission should not be built at ratepayer expense if it is needed to increase import capability from Imperial County • Comparability across all CAISO import ties must be maintained Page 11
If so, what approaches should be considered by the CAISO to implement this proposal? • Many commenters suggested that the existing MIC “look back” methodology should be replaced with a “forward looking” study based approach • Additionally, opportunity costs that might be associated with a reallocation would need to be considered • Broader stakeholder effort and rigorous testing is required to address any and all concerns related to existing and proposed new MIC methodology • Preserving Existing Transmission Contracts (ETC), Transmission Ownership Rights (TOR), and old contracts (Pre- RA Import commitments) across all import ties are important legacy rights that should be retained • “Constraint of simultaneity” must be maintained Page 12
Technical Addendum to the July 2, 2014 Imperial County Transmission Consultation Draft Discussion Paper Imperial County Transmission Consultation Stakeholder Meeting Neil Millar Executive Director, Infrastructure Development October 8, 2014
Technical addendum – Imperial County Deliverability • CAISO learned from the July 14 stakeholder meeting that clarity regarding the current deliverability capability for the Imperial county area was needed • As a result, the CAISO posted a technical addendum to the July 2, 2014 Imperial County Transmission Consultation Draft Paper • Addendum clarified the 1,400 MW forecast IID MIC target used in 2011 renewables portfolio standard procurement process and the 1700 MW Imperial area target provided by the CPUC for the 2012- 2013 planning cycle. • Addendum clarified that the CAISO 2013-2014 transmission plan supports an existing IID MIC of 462 MW plus 1000 MW of deliverability in the Imperial zone (and indicated that about 1000 MW was connecting directly to the ISO grid. • Addendum will be modified (as noted in revised discussion paper) to account for 200 MW of additional renewables that are proceeding in IID with capacity contracts to ISO load serving entities. Page 14
Clarification of Maximum Import Capability Imperial County Transmission Consultation Stakeholder Meeting Catalin Micsa Lead Engineer, Infrastructure Development October 8, 2014
Deliverability to the aggregate of load • Basics – A resource must be demonstrated to be “deliverable” to count for RA – Deliverability conveys no priority rights when a resource utilizes the ISO controlled grid • Study Methodology – Peak load condition – “Generation Pocket” concept - generation in an area may exceed the transmission capacity available to deliver resource outside the area • Resources – Imports (into the control area) – Generation 16
Recommend
More recommend
